This study was of "high-end flats of the type commonly let by expatriates" and "looked at rents of comparable apartments with similar proximity to international schools, embassies and 'social focal points'" (Whatever "social focal points" are. Isn't "pubs" a lot easier to write?)
So, clearly, this study is for expat housing and does not consider locals or, at least, not ordinary, working-class locals.
Well, I am an expat and I've lived in several of those places - Hong Kong, Tokyo, Lagos and Paris. And I've lived in some pretty nice apartments. But even the lowest end of that list looks high to me.
What kind of apartments are they talking about? How many rooms, how many square metres, what facilities? My impression is that they must be looking at very expensive apartments of several, ie more than the usual two or three, bedrooms. As another poster says, USD 8,000/mo will get you a single at the Ritz, London.
Like many of these surveys, it seems to be unrealistic.
Unfortunately, most companies don't seem to read these lists. You will find that, whilst this list errs on the high side, every companies that one works for seem to err well below the low side. It is a constant battle with HR and accounts departments to get them to agree to realistic allowances.
Anyway, thanks for that. At least the list provides some ammunition for the good guys, ie the employees, to use.

That depends upon whether or not you're a local or an expatriate. I would expect that someone sent to either place on a fixed-term expatriate contract would have housing provided. He, or she, would anywhere else.

How's the Caracas number computed? I hope it doesn't use the FX rate at the back of the Economist, which is dramatically off the true (black market) FX rate. If that black rate was used, the Caracas figure would drop to ~$4300 per month.

Have a look at London's figure. Though the City has been hit the hardest, the massive capital flight out of continental Europe has found a safe haven in London's property market. Few other western country/city has had greater rates of increase... Apart from Geneva... Maybe for the same reasons?

What do you mean by the costiest rentable place? A quick look at the Ritz, London shows that the maximum I can spend on a single room is around $8000 p.m. Does this fit into the definition of the graph? If so, would I be content with a single room or am I expecting to have 4 rooms?

- offer a living student loan (6,000 GBP/ year, say) to all students - parental income often has little relation to what an individual gets

- cut benefits, cut pensions (cap benefits at 6000 GBP/ year per person in a household - where kids count as people), raise research and infrastructure spending: less government consumption, more government investment

- offer guarantee of 35 hours work at (1/2) minimum wage for every citizen, regardless of age, education or disability (can be local council, local businesses, local charities or territorial army. That can replace JSA, housing benefit and other non-child-related benefits.

- housing benefit = government pays your rent/ mortgage (or a part of it) for you. Clearly, that inflates rents, and causes homelessness for ineligible people.

- student loans in the UK are provided by the state, at very low interest rates and repayment is conditional on income/ can be written off. Therefore, they are strictly rationed - by gross parental income. There is no market alternative.

- the west coast of Scotland is similar to Detroit in economic terms - industrial decline, no growth industries, low workforce participation, few employment opportunities, heavy dependence on public sector jobs, little private investment and terrible infrastructure (bad roads, poor broadband, overflowing sewers). In contrast, the east coast of Scotland is rich.

- "benefit cap" is a popular notion in the UK right now. "Benefits" are direct transfers of cash to households - awarded for things like being unemployed, having a disability, not having money to pay your rent, having a low income, having kids, needing childcare. The government plans to cap transfers at $41k/ year are very controversial. I think that $9,400/ person would be a more sensible cap.